[2019] KEHC 5024 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against the accused because there was no medical evidence establishing the cause of death. The post-mortem report was not produced as it was unsigned, and no doctor testified as to the cause of death. Without proof that the accused's alleged...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 5024 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Joseph Kalonzo Mutunga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitui
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 70 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
- Outcome
- acquittal at close of prosecution case (no case to answer)
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Standard of Proof, Prima Facie Case, Malice Aforethought
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
Joseph Kalonzo Mutunga
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution's Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution proved the fact of death beyond reasonable doubt.
- 2 Whether the death of the deceased was caused by an unlawful act or omission by the accused.
- 3 Whether malice aforethought was established against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against the accused because there was no medical evidence establishing the cause of death. The post-mortem report was not produced as it was unsigned, and no doctor testified as to the cause of death. Without proof that the accused's alleged assault caused the deceased's death, the essential elements of the offence of murder were not established. The court held that, in the absence of such evidence, it would be unsafe and contrary to law to require the accused to defend himself. Accordingly, the accused was acquitted under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
acquittal at close of prosecution case (no case to answer)
Orders
- The accused, Joseph Kalonzo Mutunga, is acquitted under Section 306(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KITUI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 70 OF 2015
REPUBLIC..................................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
JOSEPH KALONZO MUTUNGA.....................................ACCUSED
R U L I N G
1. Joseph Kalonzo Mutunga,the Accused, is charged with the offence of Murdercontrary to Section 203as read with Section 204of the Penal Code (Cap. 63), Laws of Kenya.Particulars of the offence are that on the 27thday of March, 2008at Kyamboo Sub-Location, Migwani Location, Mwingi West Sub-Countywithin Kitui Countyunlawfully murdered Cosmas Mwendwa Musyoka(Deceased).
2. Facts of the case are that on the 27th March, 2008,PW1 Patrick Musyoka Mwendwawas woken up at about 9. 30 p.m.by his son, the Deceased who told him that he had been assaulted by Joseph Kalonzo Mutunga,and that he was in pain. He advised him to seek treatment. He was in company of his cousin, PW6, Mwendwa Mokeand their workman, Mutembei.The two (2) individuals took him to Migwani Sub-District Hospitalwhere he was treated. They made a report to Migwani Police Stationand returned home. On the 24th April, 2008the Accused and his family took a goat to the home of the Deceased as compensation. It was slaughtered in accordance with the Kamba Customary Law.
3. On the 18th May, 2008the Deceased went to hospital. PW1 got information from a Mrs. Coniabawhom he described as a cousin of the Deceased regarding the Deceased having fallen. He went to hospital on 20th May, 2008to find him having passed on.
4. At the close of the Prosecution’s case the Prosecution had called five (5) witnesses. PW1 was the father of the Deceased who did not witness the act that resulted into the Deceased being injured but he was told by the Deceased that he had been assaulted by the Accused.
5. PW2, John Ngandi,the father of the Accused got information that his son was involved in a fight with the Deceased. Three (3) days later they visited the home of the Deceased where they found him with elastoplast on both hands and the head. They discussed and agreed to settle the issue amicably.
6. PW3 Grace Nzansi Mutunga,the mother of the Accused accompanied those who went to the home of the Deceased. She testified that they paid the hospital bill and slaughtered a goat as compensation. On hearing about his death on 21st May, 2008she did not know the cause. On cross-examination she said that at the outset, they went three days later and they were advised to let him heal prior to compensating him. A week later after he healed they went and compensated him and on the material date they found him ploughing with oxen.
7. PW4 Alice Makaa,heard noise but on going to check he found people having dispersed.
8. PW5, Stephen Makuthu Manetook the Deceased to hospital on the 19th May, 2008. PW6 Mwendwa Moketook the Deceased to hospital on 27th March, 2008.
9. The Prosecution was duty bound to prove:
(i) The fact of death.
(ii) That the death occurred as a result of an unlawful act or omission that was perpetrated by the Accused.
(iii) And it was done with malice aforethought.
10. At the close of the Prosecution’s case evidence adduced by the Prosecution witnesses that the Deceased passed on was tendered by his relatives. The Prosecution failed to call the Doctor who attended to the Deceased at the hospital when he sought treatment or the one who conducted the post-mortem.
11. This is a matter where the Prosecution was not able to adduce a post-mortem report in evidence because it had not been signed. The Doctor who intended to produce it on behalf of the one who had filled it could not do so for that reason.
12. I must also point out that families of the Deceased and the Accused were negotiating following the Kamba belief. The Accused intended to plead to a lesser charge of manslaughter by virtue of having fought with the Deceased two (2) months prior to his demise. However, when the Court perused the post-mortem report, the cause of death had not been ascertained therefore the case proceeded to full trial.
13. In the case of Bhatt vs. Republic (1957) EA 332it was stated that:
“Remembering that the legal onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, we cannot agree that a prima facie case is made out if, at the close of the prosecution, the case is merely one which on full consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction. This is perilously near suggesting that the court would not be prepared to convict if no defence is made, but rather hopes the defence will fill the gaps in the prosecution case. Nor can we agree that the question whether there is a case to answer depends only on whether, there is some evidence, irrespective of its credibility or weight, sufficient to put accused on his defence. A mere scintilla of evidence can never be enough, nor can any amount of worthless discredited evidence. It is may not be easy to define what is meant by a prima facie case “but at least it must mean one on which a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind to the law and the evidence could convict if no explanation is offered by the defence.”
14. Without proof of the cause of death, it cannot be insinuated that the fight the Accused had with the Deceased is what resulted into his death. In the premises the Prosecution has failed to establish a prima faciecase against the Accused that would require him to defend himself. In the result he is acquitted pursuant to the provision of Section 306(1)of the Criminal Procedure Code.
15. It is so ordered.
Dated, SignedandDeliveredatKituithis3rdday of July, 2019.
L. N. MUTENDE
JUDGE